Resin Composite Materials for Chairside CAD/CAM Restorations: A Comparison of Selected Mechanical Properties

Abstract

Objective. The aim was to evaluate the flexural strength, flexural modulus, microhardness, Weibull modulus, and characteristic strength of six resin composite blocks (Grandio Blocs-GR, Tetric CAD-TE, Brilliant Crios-CR, Katana Avencia-AV, Cerasmart-CS, and Shofu Block HC-HC). Methods. Flexural strength and flexural modulus were measured using a three-point bending test and microhardness using the Vickers method. Weibull analysis was also performed. Results. The materials showed flexural strength ranging from 120.38 (HC) to 186.02 MPa (GR), flexural modulus from 8.26 (HC) to 16.95 GPa (GR), and microhardness from 70.85 (AV) to 140.43 (GR). Weibull modulus and characteristic strength ranged from 16.35 (CS) to 34.98 (TE) and from 123.45 MPa (HC) to 190.3 MPa (GR), respectively. Conclusions. GR, TE, and CR presented significantly higher flexural strength, modulus, Weibull modulus, and characteristic strength than the others.

Printable and Machinable Dental Restorative Composites for CAD/CAM Application—Comparison of Mechanical Properties, Fractographic, Texture and Fractal Dimension Analysis

“…Their composition according to the literature is given in Table 1 Machinable materials used in the study. In the case of GR and CR materials, the flexural strength, flexural modulus and microhardness were previously published by the authors [ 10 ].…”

“… Where: σ f —flexural strength; E f —flexural modulus; HV01—Vickers microhardness; Materials with the same letter within a column are not significantly different ( p > 0.05); Mean values ( n = 10) and standard deviations in parentheses; —mean; SD—standard deviation; *—data previously published by the authors [ 10 ]; GR—Grandio blocs, CR—Brilliant Crios, EN—Enamic, VSC—Varseo Smile Crown plus. …”

“…Maintaining a stable liquid consistency suggests that the printable dental material for permanent restorations, similarly to flowable dental composites, should contain less inorganic filler than composites available in blocks and discs. Lower filler content affects the stiffness of the material and may lead to the E-modulus value significantly lower than the one of hard tissues [ 9 , 10 , 11 ].…”

Resistance fracture of minimally prepared endocrowns made by three types of restorative materials: a 3D finite element analysis

“…Along with the evolution of high-strength and tough restorative materials, a lower occlusal reduction was recommended to adopt a minimally invasive approach in the posterior region [9]. Etchable glass ceramic and nanocomposite resin materials are often used in chairside CAD/CAM fabrication of restorations due to their esthetic appearance, excellent biocompatibility, and mechanical properties [10][11][12]. Among the available chairside CAD/CAM materials, lithium disilicate glass-ceramic and nanofilled composite resin stand out [13].…”

Resistance Fracture of Minimally Prepared Endocrowns Made By Three Types of Restorative Materials: A 3D Finite Element Analysis

“…Along with the evolution of high-strength and tough restorative materials, a lower occlusal reduction was recommended to adopt a minimally invasive approach in the posterior region [9]. Etchable glass ceramic and nanocomposite resin materials are often used in chairside CAD/CAM fabrication of restorations due to their esthetic appearance, excellent biocompatibility and mechanical properties [10][11][12]. Among the available chairside CAD/CAM materials, lithium disilicate glass-ceramic and nano lled composite resin stand out [13].…”